Advertisement

Advances in Therapy

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 1075–1084 | Cite as

Prognostic value of preoperative CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP levels in gastric cancer

  • Edip Ucar
  • Ersan Semerci
  • Hasan Ustun
  • Tugba Yetim
  • Can Huzmeli
  • Murat Gullu
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

Recent research has suggested that serum tumor markers can give valuable prognostic information in gastric cancer. In this study, we examined the relationship between preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, CA 72-4, and alfa fetoprotein (AFP) levels on clinicopathologic significance in gastric cancer patients.

Methods

Preoperative plasma levels of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, and AFP were retrospectively examined in 95 patients who underwent surgical resection for gastric cancer, and the prognostic value of the tumour markers were estimated.

Results

The percentage of CA 19-9, CA 72-4, CEA, and AFP-positive cases were 41%, 32.6%, 24.2%, and 8.4%, respectively. CEA was more frequently positive in the patients with liver metastases (P=0.02). CA 19-9 was more frequently positive in patients with lymph node (P=0.005), peritoneal (P=0.01), and serosal (P=0.03) involvement. CA 72-4 was more frequently positive in patients with lymph node (P=0.01), peritoneal (P=0.03), and liver (P=0.01) involvement. Low 3-year cumulative survival was associated significantly with elevated serum levels of CEA (P=0.001), CA 19-9 (P=0.001), CA 72-4 (P=0.001), and AFP (P=0.01). In multivariate analysis, age, tumor stage, and CA 72-4 were the only independent prognostic factors. Being positive for CA 72-4 was associated with a 3.8-fold higher risk of death (95% confidence intervals: 1.3, 10.9).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that high preoperative serum levels of CA 72-4 in gastric cancer patients are associated with a higher risk of death due to gastric cancer.

Keywords

alfa fetoprotein CA 19-9 CA 72-4 carcinoembryonic antigen gastric cancer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Terry MB, Gaudet MM, Gammon MD. The epidemiology of gastric cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002;12:111–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black RJ, Bray F, Ferlay J, Parkin DM. Cancer incidence and mortality in the European Union: cancer registry data and estimates of national incidence for 1990. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33:1075–1107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ychou M, Duffour J, Kramar A, Gourgou S, Grenier J. Clinical significance and prognostic value of CA 72-4 compared with CEA and CA19-9 in patients with gastric cancer. Dis Markers. 2000;16:105–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shiraishi N, Sato K, Yasuda K, Inomata M, Kitano S. Multivariate prognostic study on large gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2007;96:14–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duraker N, Celik AN. The prognostic significance of preoperative serum CA 19-9 in patients with respectable gastric carcinoma: comparison with CEA. J Surg Oncol. 2001;76:266–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi SR, Jang JS, Lee JH, et al. Role of serum tumor markers in monitoring for recurrence of gastric cancer following radical gastrectomy. Dig Dis Sci. 2006;51:2081–2086.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamashita K, Sakuramoto S, Kikuchi S, Katada N, Kobayashi N, Watanabe M. Surgical resection of stage IV gastric cancer and prognosis. Anticancer Res. 2007;27:4381–4386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    González A, Vizoso F, Allende MT, Sánchez MT, Balibrea JL, Ruibal A. Preoperative CEA and TAG-72 serum levels as prognostic indicators in resectable gastric carcinoma. Int J Biol Markers. 1996;11:165–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tocchi A, Costa G, Lepre L, et al. The role of serum and gastric juice levels of carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19.9 and CA72.4 in patients with gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1998;124:450–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lauren P. The two histological main types of gastric carcinoma: diffuse and so-called intestinal-type carcinoma. An attempt at a histo-clinical classification. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1965;64:31–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric cancer-2nd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 1998;1:10–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaspar MJ, Arribas I, Coca MC, Diez-Alonso M. Prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 in gastric carcinoma. Tumor Biol. 2001;22:318–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim YH, Ajani JA, Ota DM, Lynch P, Roth JA. Value of serial carcinoembryonic antigen levels in patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and stomach. Cancer. 1995;75:451–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carpelan-Holmström M, Louhimo J, Stenman UH, Alfthan H, Haglund C. CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 improve the diagnostic accuracy in gastrointestinal cancers. Anticancer Res. 2002;22:2311–2316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berg EL, Robinson MK, Mansson O, Butcher EC, Magnani JL. A carbohydrate domain common to both sialyl Lea and sialyl Lex is recognized by the endothelial cell leukocyte adhesion molecule ELAM-1. J Biol Chem. 1991;266:14869–14872.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lai IR, Lee WJ, Huang MT, et al. Comparison of serum CA72-4, CEA, TPA, CA19-9 and CA125 levels in gastric cancer patients and correlation with recurrence. Hepatogastroenterology. 2002;49:1157–1160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mattar R, Alves de Andrade CR, DiFavero GM, Gama-Rodrigues JJ, Laudanna AA. Preoperative serum levels of CA 72-4, CEA, CA 19-9, and alpha-fetoprotein in patients with gastric cancer. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 2002;57:89–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Byrne DJ, Browning MC, Cuschieri A. CA72-4: a new tumor marker for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 1990;77:1010–1013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kodama I, Koufuji K, Kawabata S, et al. The clinical efficacy of CA 72-4 as serum marker for gastric cancer in comparison with CA19-9 and CEA. Int Surg. 1995;80:45–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bates SE, Longo DL. Use of serum tumor markers in cancer diagnosis and management. Semin Oncol. 1987;14:102–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Libman E, Lemberger J, Kollin J. Alphafetoprotein in the serum of patients with primary gastric cancer and liver metastases. Acta Hepatogastroenterol. 1979;26:198–202.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang YC, Nagasue N, Kohno H, et al. Clinicopathologic features and long-term results of α-fetoprotein-producing gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85:1480–1485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kono K, Amemiya H, Sekikawa T, et al. Clinicopathologic features of gastric cancers producing alpha-fetoprotein. Dig Surg. 2002;19:359–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Webb A, Scott-Mackie P, Cunningham D, et al. The prognostic value of serum and immunohistochemical tumor markers in advanced gastric cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32:63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakajima K, Takenori O, Suzuki T, et al. Impact of preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 19-9 and alpha-fetoprotein levels in gastric cancer patients. Tumor Biol. 1998;19:464–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marrelli D, Roviello F, De Stefano A, et al. Prognostic significance of CEA, CA 19-9 and CA 72-4 preoperative serum levels in gastric carcinoma. Oncology. 1999;57:55–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nakamura T, Tabuchi Y, Nakae S, Ohno M, Saitoh Y. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels and proliferating cell nuclear antigen labeling index for patients with colorectal carcinoma. Correlation with tumor progression and survival. Cancer. 1996;77:1741–1746.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Communications 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edip Ucar
    • 1
    • 5
  • Ersan Semerci
    • 2
  • Hasan Ustun
    • 3
  • Tugba Yetim
    • 4
  • Can Huzmeli
    • 4
  • Murat Gullu
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineMustafa Kemal UniversityHatayTurkey
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryMustafa Kemal UniversityHatayTurkey
  3. 3.Specialist of Medical OncologyKarolinska InstituteStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of Internal MedicineMustafa Kemal UniversityHatayTurkey
  5. 5.Mustafa Kemal UniversitesiHatayTurkey

Personalised recommendations